Like I showed in the debate, you don’t appear to be able to accept any criticism from anyone; your issue with me isnot that I vote unfairly, but really that I vote more. You’ve accused the overwhelming majority of individuals who have voted against you prior to our debate of not understanding your position, or being terrible voters.
Obviously, one of the main issues is that when we debate, we always think our own arguments are phenomenal, and unbeatable. When someone doesn’t agree with you, you’re comparing a voter who read what you wrote vs the person in the world who best understands your argument, and is always 100% on your side. It’s easy for many individuals to presume the issue is solely with the voter and not with the arguments because, well, your brain tells you that they’re fantastic.
I am unable to test your metacognition, but this type of issue is the inherent source of the Dunning Kruger Effect, and why political extremists are unable to recognize their own errors.
So, as you seem to object: I’ll give you an example of your Automomous vehicles issue. Let’s ignore the indesciphedable language; there were obvious and clear benefits of moving to autonomous vehicles.
To fight this, a “who could be blamed if there’s an accident” is a bad argument - as we currently already have major industries that face similar issues, and they are able to overcome the issues.
Likewise the idea that it’s taking jobs is bad too, any technology improvement does this.
Your opponent had the higher ground - because your opponent framed the technology was simply an extension of existing technology and the same as other technological developments in the past - and you charged up and tried to fight to that hill by picking issues that would largely be problems with existing technology. The result was then mostly an inevitable matter of record - as Oromagi clearly knew his stuff.
This combined with you going off on the pointless Game theory rabbit hole, bizarre nonsense about blackmail, and your reliance on subjective opinion vs Oromagi presenting facts, is why you lost that one.
Even in your recent abortion debate - You were faced with an opponent who asked where in the constitution does it say abortion is a right: you could have cited that the Supreme Court is afforded the power to determine what is and is not constitutional, and did so in this case under the grounds that woman’s control over their own body is protected by the right to privacy, and that the constitution explicitly states that no rights are abridged if not enumerated. Like three sentences - boom, win. Instead your approach was to launch a mostly nonsensical tactic of presenting your opinion of what the theme of the constituent was; which is in no way shape or form bore any relation to justifying why the specific text or legal aplication of constitution legally allows for abortion.
This is what I mean by errors: I think you need to recognize these failures rather than attribute them being called out to malfeasance.
